DALEY: The charter’s missing section

Friday

Mar 20, 2009 at 2:00 AM

The Town of Barnstable has had a sitting Charter Commission for more than 16 months now. The group has a maximum life span of not more than 18 months. So, the end of this review of our local government is fast approaching.

Michael Daley

The Town of Barnstable has had a sitting Charter Commission for more than 16 months now. The group has a maximum life span of not more than 18 months. So, the end of this review of our local government is fast approaching.

As required, this elected government review group held the first of two public hearings last week. There is another hearing scheduled for next week. In case you haven’t heard, the first hearing didn’t bring out much in the way of public support for the group’s work to date. Unlike many, I am not disappointed in what the commission has allowed us to see and comment upon. I am disappointed in the fact that the document that they published for us to comment upon is incomplete. I think the commission did both themselves and the community a considerable disservice. I believe that if the residents don’t like what they have already seen from this commission, they really won’t like what they have not seen yet. Speakers at the hearings can comment upon the fact that our now 13-member precinct-based town council is expected to become a body of nine. The commission we elected in the fall of 2007 is proposing a new mix of four councilors elected town-wide and five councilors elected from specific geographic areas of town called districts. To do this, we need to establish two new precincts. Then, three abutting precincts will make up a district. In effect, three contiguous precincts will elect one district councilor. That cannot happen until the federal government completes the 2010 census and the state draws new voting districts for use in the 2012 state and federal elections. Those giving testimony last week likely did not know that the proposed new government cannot take effect until at best the end of 2011 and most likely won’t occur until the end of 2013. That is two-and-one-half to four-and-one-half years from now. Do you want to wait that long? We know that they currently want us to have a seven-member school committee. When do we get that growth? We don’t need any new precincts for part of that change. Is there a special election for the sixth member right away or do we wait until we get the new Council President/School Committee member elected some time out there in the future? That dual office concept is a throwback to the days when we had our residents running for the offices of Selectman/Assessor and Town Clerk/Treasurer. We also don’t need to wait for the precinct changes if the commissioners change the charter to an all at-large council. Will they do that and schedule the new government’s elections for next spring? They certainly can do it if they want to. The commissioners have also determined that we need to elect one of the nine councilors to be the head of the town council. It seems that the other eight are deemed unworthy of electing their own leader. At least the larger school committee gets to do that. The new voter-elected council president/school committee member is to be paid $36,000 per year. That is, if what we have seen take place in the prior commission meetings holds true. Keep in mind that at one meeting it was to be $50,000 per year. We can’t comment on this proposed high-priced legislator because they didn’t put that information in the document they are presently vetting. It will be in the missing Section 10 when you see the final report. They also didn’t put down in writing that they plan to propose in their final report that we should pay the other eight councilors $8,000 per year. They haven’t told us if they plan to pay the soon-to-be seven-member school committee at all. One of them is already going to be paid $36,000. Will the new charter propose paying all of our school committee members once the final document is done and delivered to us? Last week many of us watched a commissioner who also serves on the current town council tell his fellow councilors and those of us watching the meeting that the nine new councilors will get to appoint themselves a new town manager when they all come into office. That can’t happen unless this commission puts language in the proposed charter that terminates the current town manager. Is that what this commission plans to do? We will only get to find out if they plan to fire this council’s town manager when the commission finishes their work. We won’t be able to speak with them on that subject. Term limits will continue for town councilors if the new document is passed as presently written. Does the commission plan to include transition language that will prevent candidates from running for the new nine-member town council if they have already been term limited out under the current charter? For example, the town councilor that currently serves on the charter commission is unable to run for the town council again under the current charter. Will there be language in the charter document currently being drafted that keeps that prohibition intact? We should know the answer to that question now and we should be allowed to comment upon it. Again, we can’t comment on it because they didn’t tell us what they have in store for us on this subject. We have at least two town council seats opening this fall. As I write this, others are still trying to determine if they should run again or for the first time. The same is true for the school committee. The uncertainty created by the missing transition language in the current draft charter is unfortunate. I sympathize with those considering their future as elected town council and school officials. They deserve better. How does one make an informed decision to run for elected office when the life cycle of a position elected next November is still so uncertain? Good fortune has allowed us the opportunity to attend a second hearing next week. It was originally intended to allow us to only discuss what we have in writing before us. It seems to me that the commission should not close the hearing process at the end of the meeting next week. It would serve us all quite nicely if they would simply adjourn that hearing until they finish all of the work that we elected them to perform. Then, before they close up shop and go out of business, they should distribute the “rest of the story” to us and let us comment on it also. Actually, that is what they should have done for us in the first place.